scardella Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 [quote name='Budge']All Rome did was make the canon OFFICIAL, the books were long in use before hand. The canon was already known by Christians.[/quote] I seem to recall there being quite a bit of debate over the canon of Scripture. I've seen a number of different lists being put forth as what the New Testament should be. [url="http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html"]http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html[/url] The above website has a handy little chart showing the discrepancies between different lists of the New Testament before the canon was defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I asked for proof about that for a few reasons. Can't wait to read her reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 While many of the New Testament books for the most part enjoyed universal consensus early on, that the full canon was somehow set in stone or fell from the sky is the most wishful kind of thinking -- a kind of thinking that is rather idealistic and out of touch with history. This is simply historical fact and it amazes me when people try to argue differently. Often the same exact people who would otherwise be labelled as "fact mongers", turn a blind eye when the facts don't line up with their set of beliefs. I guess this is just an innate part of human nature -- nobody wants to be wrong (most especially the fundamentalist)! It should be noted that the contradictory nature in the Protestant fundamentalist position arises because it is for the most part reactionary and reactionary theology tends to suffer in proportion to how reactionary it is. For example, Protestants could never tolerate the idea that the Bible could actually be an historical process since for them it is the only foundation [b]against[/b] history and the cycle of human whimsicalness and sin (as perceived in the Catholic Church). The fundamentalist position toward the Bible is reckless -- it has no historical accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted September 12, 2006 Author Share Posted September 12, 2006 bumpety bump bump bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 [quote name='Justified Saint' post='1061109' date='Sep 11 2006, 10:17 PM'] While many of the New Testament books for the most part enjoyed universal consensus early on, that the full canon was somehow set in stone or fell from the sky is the most wishful kind of thinking -- a kind of thinking that is rather idealistic and out of touch with history. This is simply historical fact and it amazes me when people try to argue differently. Often the same exact people who would otherwise be labelled as "fact mongers", turn a blind eye when the facts don't line up with their set of beliefs. I guess this is just an innate part of human nature -- nobody wants to be wrong (most especially the fundamentalist)! It should be noted that the contradictory nature in the Protestant fundamentalist position arises because it is for the most part reactionary and reactionary theology tends to suffer in proportion to how reactionary it is. For example, Protestants could never tolerate the idea that the Bible could actually be an historical process since for them it is the only foundation [b]against[/b] history and the cycle of human whimsicalness and sin (as perceived in the Catholic Church). The fundamentalist position toward the Bible is reckless -- it has no historical accountability. [/quote] true that. That was one of many things that made me believe that the mess that is protestantism is too absurb to be the religion that Christ Himself established. Oh, I'm speaking of back when I encountered Christ for the first time and knew that I was called to participate in His Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 [quote name='scardella' post='1061325' date='Sep 12 2006, 12:22 PM'] bumpety bump bump bump [/quote] O_o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 [quote name='CatholicCid' post='1061953' date='Sep 12 2006, 09:32 PM'] O_o [/quote] o_O I see budge posting elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Is it that hard a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Is this text white or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 maybe today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1073747' date='Sep 24 2006, 12:22 PM'] Gods Word is my guide, you have all these other competing guides so oftentimes dispute what God's Word DIRECTLY says. [/quote] Maybe now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now